New U.S. study helps demystify COVID brain fog

A small new study published by scientists at the U.S. National Institutes of Health suggests that the immune response triggered by coronavirus infections damages the brain's blood vessels and could be responsible for long COVID symptoms.

More reason not to become infected in the first place. Vaccinations seem to not provide protection against this brain fog so the best strategy is not to become infected, vaccinated or not, and hence the zero covid strategy.

And the vaccine? Brain fog is a known side effect

Your link is one single case report of something completely different. Four described cases out of literally billions of vaccinated people do not compare with the well know prevalence of the problem as a form of long covid.

Vaccinations seem to not provide protection against this brain fog 

Vaccinations have shown protection against long covid in several studies, that of course is on top of the protection from the disease on infected people and the protection to get infected in the first place.

No international expert recommends right now the zero covid policy, on the opposite it has been described as unsustainable by them, and that comes on top of other strategies giving similar or even better results without the need to destroy the local economy, let people die without access to health services and being abused to trample the human rights of the citizens.

Vaccinations have shown protection against long covid in several studies, that of course is on top of the protection from the disease on infected people and the protection to get infected in the first place.

And your sources are . . .none.

Here is an actual source:

Do Vaccines Protect Against Long Covid?

*Maybe**, according to a growing number of studies, but there’s not yet a definitive answer.*

https://www.nytimes.com/article/long-covid-vaccines.html

No international expert recommends right now the zero covid policy, on the opposite it has been described as unsustainable by them, and that comes on top of other strategies giving similar or even better results without the need to destroy the local economy, let people die without access to health services and being abused to trample the human rights of the citizens.

And your sources are . . .none.

Sounds like international experts disagree with your layman's opinion:

If China gives up on epidemic prevention and relies entirely on treatment of symptoms, the medical system would run the risk of being overwhelmed, said Ma Xiaowei, director of the National Health Commission (NHC).

https://english.cctv.com/2022/04/12/ARTIUDZm1JsyO3DZmNvaI1Eb220412.shtml

In other words, covid can lead to developing autoimmunity which is far more serious than one may think.

And your sources are . . .none.

It is rare for people to accept ignoring the topic so completely that they don't know there are such articles.

Your own source say there is an apparent protection, which is the opposite of what you said.

The three primary studies mentioned do say they protect

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1062160/v1

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00460-6/fulltext

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.02.23.22271388v1

Vaccination (compared with no vaccination) was associated with reduced odds of hospitalisation or having more than five symptoms in the first week of illness following the first or second dose, and long-duration (≥28 days) symptoms following the second dose.

It seems quite clear that protection is gained by vaccines, again on top of protecting against infection and symptomatic disease in the first place.

And your sources are . . .none.

Well, when the point is that there are no sources claiming the policy is recommendable that proves the point.

Sounds like international experts disagree with your layman's opinion:

This expert is in no way saying that the zero covid policy is something to recommend, on the contrary is criticizing China as unable to do something even developing countries have been able to do during the 2 years of the pandemic, it is valuable that the NHC can openly recognized their country is doing things so wrong that something that has become the norm around the world (to be able to keep a functioning public health system even with controlled infections) is impossible to do for China.

Additionally, since you have absolutely no knowledge of who is a layman or not from the commenters, this is just (again) your baseless speculation, something that you tend to do every time you are disproven so you can get your comments deleted. You know you can just accept you were wrong, right?

NIH scientist Avindra Nath, the paper's senior author, said in a statement: "Patients often develop neurological complications with COVID-19, but the underlying pathophysiological process is not well understood."

*And unfortunately, vaccines are of no help for long Covid, according to recent studies, many of which debunk an earlier *small study in the Lancet.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(22)00020-0/fulltext

Newer studies show more up to date, comprehensively studied results:

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccines-offer-little-protection-long-covid-study-finds-rcna30467

https://www.nytimes.com/article/long-covid-vaccines.html

And unfortunately, vaccines are of no help for long Covid, according to recent studies, many of which debunk an earlier *small study in the Lancet

That is not a quote from Avindra Nath, are you quoting yourself to make it seem like the opinion of this scientist?

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(22)00020-0/fulltext

Your reference still proves a benefit from vaccines against COVID,

The reasons for vaccination beyond the most pressing need to avert severe disease and deaths are manifold, but foremost it is to prevent long COVID.” De Soyza added “Ideally preventing both acute severe COVID through vaccination and also reducing the chances of long COVID represents an additional driver to support people to get vaccinated.”

https://www.nytimes.com/article/long-covid-vaccines.html

The three references I put are also mentioned in this reference.

One of these is a study on 1.2 million people showing a 50% decrease of long covid.

If anything your references show the opposite of what you said they would show. And that also comes on top of the protection vaccines offer against the infection becoming symptomatic or even the infection happening on the first case.

And the vaccine? Brain fog is a known side effect

Yes, components of the mRNA "vaccines" are known to cross the blood brain barrier.

Anyway, I very much doubt we'll ever read anything here about their adverse effects.

Yes, components of the mRNA "vaccines" are known to cross the blood brain barrier.

In the same studies with megadoses IV on mice? that would make that conclusion as applicable to humans as saying all the individuals that were not vaccinated died from the infection.

Read the article, the cause are the antibodies in the blood attacking the barrier, not anything from the other side. This explain why the problem is so commonly presented in the infection but not in vaccinated people.

Anyway, I very much doubt we'll ever read anything here about their adverse effects.

Since they are a tiny minority compared with the problems with the infection this is expected. The actual public health problem comes from covid, not from the vaccines.

Interesting to see also that you had no arguments to defend the article you brought, so you accept it is invalid and misleading, but still you choose to keep using it as a reference, even when you implicitly recognize it is wrong because the invalid methods of the authors.

Anyway, I very much doubt we'll ever read anything here about their adverse effects.

Since they are a tiny minority compared with the problems with the infection this is expected. The actual public health problem comes from covid, not from the vaccines.

Well, that's the thing, they are a not a tiny minority, despite your best efforts to minimize/dismiss the vaccine adverse effects while exaggerating the effects of the virus. The actual data shows that:

"The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively)."

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125239

Yes, components of the mRNA "vaccines" are known to cross the blood brain barrier.

In the same studies with megadoses IV on mice?

No, I was referring to researchers such as Robert Malone taking advantage of the ability of the mRNA in the nanoparticles to cross the blood brain barrier to investigate possible treatments targeting the brain.

Well, that's the thing, they are a not a tiny minority, despite your best efforts to minimize/dismiss the vaccine adverse effects while exaggerating the effects of the virus. The actual data shows that:

No, it does not show that, for that you need a study that do not so transparently manipulated the evidence until it can force a result that the authors like and make valid comparisons instead of inflating the problems with vaccines by counting each event separately while minimizing the covid problems by counting all under one single hospitalization.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125239

Yes, this is the same invalid manuscript that has been already debunked as pseudoscience and that you made exactly zero effort in defending, so you accept is invalid and wrong for all the reasons already exposed and some extra more.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/statistical-shenanigans/

Why do you keep bringing an article you have implicitly recognized as invalid? if you can't defend something against perfectly valid criticism to keep using it means you are not interested in what is actually correct, but instead to convince people of something even if you know it is mistaken.

No, I was referring to researchers such as Robert Malone taking advantage of the ability of the mRNA in the nanoparticles to cross the blood brain barrier to investigate possible treatments targeting the brain.

Of which he has produced exactly how many? what do you think it means that the nanoparticles have to be specifically designed to penetrate the barrier with the adition of specific peptides or receptors so they can do it? exactly, that the particles without those improvements (such as the ones used for the mRNA vaccines) are not able to do it to produce any detectable change.

And again, the mechanisms described do not depend at all on passing the barrier, that is all something you assumed.

Damage to these cells can cause leakage of proteins, bleeding and clots, which elevates the risk of stroke.

Sounds familiar.

Damage to these cells can cause leakage of proteins, bleeding and clots, which elevates the risk of stroke.

Sounds familiar.

That is because this is a common complication of COVID-19, it happens all around the body, so it is natural to see it also in the brain.